Death (Gopal Anant) Mahendra Singh Anant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 9

¶2

2025:CGHC:45617

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 28 of 2004

¶6

Gopal Anant (Dead) through LR :

¶7

Mahendra Singh Anant S/o Late Gopal Anant Aged About 27 Years R/o House Number 139, Ambedkar Para, Bodtara, Baloda Bazar, Jaraud, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Bhopal, M. P. Unit Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, PL

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

08/09/2025

¶15

Digitally ASHUTOSH signed by MISHRA ASHUTOSH MISHRA

¶16

Since the sole appellant in this case has died on 11/04/2021, now the appeal is being pressed by his legal heir (son) namely; Mahendra Singh Anant. For the sake of convenience, the original appellant/ accused would be hereinafter referred as ‘the accused/appellant’.

¶17

2 / 9

¶18

This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05/01/2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (Authorized under Prevention of Corruption Act) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.15/2000, whereby the appellant has been convicted & sentenced as under:-

¶19

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 13(1) (D) read with	R.I. for Six Years and fine of
Section 13 (2) of Prevention of	Rs.6000/- and in default of
Corruption Act, 1988	payment of fine additional R.I. for 1 Year
Under Section 7 of Prevention of	R.I. for two years and fine of
Corruption Act, 1988	Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 2 months.
	Fine amount has already been paid. Substantive jail sentences to run concurrently.

¶20

The prosecution case in brief, is that appellant/ accused Gopal Anant was posted as Patwari in Patwari Halka No.112, District Raipur in March 2000. Complainant Rajeev Rai resident of Mahavir Nagar Raipur and two sisters Smt. Suman and Smt. Sudha Singh had purchased 5000 sq. ft. land which was to be certified. Complainant Rajeev Rai met accused Gopal Anant and gave him a copy of sale deed. When the complainant met the accused again, the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000 from

¶21

3 / 9

¶22

him. The complainant did not want to give bribe. He made a complaint to Special Police Establishment, Branch Raipur on 15.3.2000, the complainant was given a tape recorder to confirm the veracity of the complaint. The complainant again on 16.3.2000, met the accused and clearly talked about giving bribe. The conversation was taped. The complainant again complained about the bribe on 23.3.2000 along with the tape recorder. On which FIR was registered. The speech on tape was recorded. A trap team was constituted on 23.3.2000. Witnesses Shyamji Shrivastava and Sameer Kumar Rai were summoned. The complainant was asked to produce Rs. 1000/- which was to be given as bribe. Their serial numbers were mentioned in the initial Panchnama. After applying phenolphthalein powder on them were put in the shirt pocket of the complainant. He was selfdirected to give the bribe amount on the demand of the accused and to indicate by spreading his hand on his head. The process of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein chemicals was explained. The solution which had turned pink was sealed and the preliminary Panchnama was taken and the trap team left for the scene of crime.

¶23

The trap team reached the accused's place, the complainant went to the house of the accused, there a person told him that the accused has gone to some other village. The trap team went to village Cherikhedi, the accused was measuring on the roadside in Cherikhedi, the complainant went to the accused, the accused

¶24

4 / 9

¶25

demanded bribe from the complainant, the complainant gave one thousand rupees kept in the bribe box to the accused, which the accused kept in his shirt pocket, on signal the trap team came to the accused and introduced himself and started the proceedings, the sodium carbonate solution was ready in which the hands of the accused were washed, the wash changed from pink colour and was sealed. The bribe money was recovered from the accused, the details of which were matched with the preliminary panchnama, the serial numbers were found correct. The pocket of the shirt of the accused and the bribe amount were separately washed with sodium carbonate and the wash changed from pink colour and was sealed separately. The hands of the complainant were also washed with sodium carbonate and the wash changed from pink colour and was sealed. Seizure was done, statements of witnesses were taken, map of the place of occurrence was obtained from the Patwari. Numbered FIR was written, the seized materials were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for examination. In the biopsy report, the presence of Sodium Carbonate and Phenol chemicals was confirmed in the soap used to wash hands and the tissue from the pockets of the accused. From the investigation, documents and statements of witnesses, it was found that the accused Shri Gopal Anant, while being a government servant in the post of Patwari in Raipur district, misused his position and demanded Rs. 1000/- from the complainant Rajiv Rai as bribe from an illegal source other than

¶26

5 / 9

¶27

his legal remuneration and on 23.3.2000, he demanded and received the bribe. Sanction for prosecution was obtained from the Legislative Affairs Department of the Government of India to prosecute the accused and a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 7 and Section 13(1) (D) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶28

During the course of trial, the appellant abjured her guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence and other material available on record convicted the appellant/accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the demand of illegal gratification on the spot must have been proved and should have been corroborated by the Panch Witnesses, but no such evidence is available on record. He would next contend that until and unless the demand of illegal gratification is proved on the part of the appellant from the complainant and only on the basis of recovery of money from the possession of the appellant the appellant cannot be convicted and the presumption under Section 20 cannot be applied. He would next contend that the demand of illegal gratification, its acceptance and recovery of the same from the possession of the appellant has not been proved. He would next contend that the conversation between the appellant and the

¶30

6 / 9

¶31

complainant has not been proved for want of spectrographic test. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Of Kerala & Anr vs C.P. Rao {(2011) 6 SCC 450}; Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke vs. State of Maharashtra {AIR 2000 SC 3377}; Krishan Chander vs State Of Delhi {AIR 2016 S.C. 298}; and the law laid down by this Court in Ramgopal Sahu (R. G. Sahu) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {CRA No.1505 of 2017} and would further contend that the instant appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction may be set aside.

¶32

On the other hand, Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and would submit that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶34

The first question for consideration would be, whether demand of illegal gratification has been duly proved by the prosecution?

¶35

Rajiv Rai (PW.6), the complainant, stated that the land was purchased in the name of his Sister (Dharam Behen). He further in para 8 has stated that he has not filed application for Pramanikaran. On being asked for money by the accused, since he was to get the work of Pramanikaran done, hence, he thought

¶36

7 / 9

¶37

that the accused is compelling him to come again and again and therefore he got enraged and reached to the office of the Lokayukta. He further in para 9 has stated that the application was drafted by Rajput sahab and other officers posted there. The words in the application he had given were probably not right, so they dictated and made him write the application. His written application was torn and thrown away. He had only told the Lokayukta office that the accused was asking for one thousand rupees. He further in para 10 stated that the entire application of Ex.P.24 was prepared on other person’s dictation where he did not know the name of his sister, he asked him and got it dictated. He did not tell him in his application that the accused is demanding Rs. 500 each for authentication as bribe. He said that this has to be written for taking action. The witness himself said that he had told him that the accused is demanding Rs. 1000. In para 11 he further stated that the proceedings of transcription did not take place in his presence and he admitted the fact that he put signature on the papers on the instructions of the officers.

¶38

In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has demanded illegal gratification from the complainant and event he script of the tape recorder has not been prepared in presence of the complainant and there is no supportive evidence with regard to demand of bribe by the appellant.

¶39

Now, the next question for consideration would be whether the

¶40

8 / 9

¶41

voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification has been proved by the prosecution.

¶42

Rajiv Rai (PW-6), in para 13 has deposed that when he started giving money to the appellant then the appellant said that what are you doing and he shook his hand. By the time he had made the signal and when he saw by turning he saw that the money had fallen on the ground and the same had fallen on account of shaking of his hand by the appellant.

¶43

Resham Lal (PW-7) in para 5 has stated that it is wrong to say that the notes were not fallen on the ground.

¶44

Both the witnesses have stated that the money had fallen on the ground whereas the seizure has been made from the pocket of the accused. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the statement made by the complainant that the accused has not accepted the bribe voluntarily.

¶45

The last question for consideration is whether the recovery of tainted notes is from the pockets of the appellant has been duly proved ?

¶46

From examination of the over all the evidence and exhibits it is a disputed fact that whether the money was recovered fro the pocket of the appellant and the said fact has not been proved beyond the reasonable doubt that the recovery of the tainted notes were made from the pocket of the accused.

¶47

9 / 9

¶48

Considering the above-stated facts, also considering the evidence of complainant Rajiv Rai (PW-6), who is the complainant, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 13(1) (D) read with Section 13 (2) and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 dated 05/01/2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (Authorized under Prevention of Corruption Act) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.15/2000 is set aside.

¶49

The criminal appeal is allowed . Consequence of this order shall follow.

¶50

Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶51

SD/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶52

ashu

Death (Gopal Anant) Mahendra Singh Anant v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Death (Gopal Anant) Mahendra Singh Anant v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupendra Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bankat Singh Vs Janardan Singh

Deva Das Chaturvedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Yogeshwari Bai Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S. N.R. Marketings Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhani Pujari Vs State of Chhattisgarh